On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:42:47AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:32:54PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > > On 10/04/2013 03:21 PM, Dave Allan wrote: > > > As its summary says, BZ 1010824 requests that virsh suspend should > > > raise error an error when called on a VM that's paused. Is the > > > current behavior correct? > > > > Or more importantly, would changing the behavior break backward > > compatibility promises, where the best we can do is just document the > > current behavior? > > It depends what you decide the semantics of the API are. eg the > difference beetween "Move the VM to the paused state" vs "Ensure > the VM is in the paused state". The way we have it implemented > is really doing the latter, hence it would not be an error if > the VM was already in the paused state. That's exactly what I wanted to clarify, and I think those are reasonable semantics, so I've closed as NOTABUG. Dave -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list